Bert

You need a rig that can produce 540 FPS to be able to take advantage of that, even with a 4090 or 7900XTX you will not see those framerates. Also the difference is getting smaller every time you up the Hz rating: 60 Hz = 16,6ms between frames 120 Hz = 8,3ms between frames 240 Hz = 4,2ms between frames 360 Hz = 2,7ms between frames 540 Hz = 1,9ms between frames For the amount of manipulation happening from the game, ie active latency balancing and skill based matchmaking I would not invest in anything over average hardware as it's simply pointless. Even stuff like routers. Average home net has 1ms between device and router and for a fiber connection you have 1ms between device and ISP node. Do you really think QoS and all this BS matters if the game simply matches your latency in lobby to the other players? You can't even tell if you are playing on a 10ms, 30 ms or 50ms server in game due to the lag compensation systems.

No opposite way around. He wants to keep BT wifi. So what you will end up with is: 1. Connect XR1000 WAN to BT LAN 2. If BT Hub has the option, place the XR1000 in DMZ so you avoid double nat That should fix it. The firewall on a XR1000 is still active so you need to keep DHCP etc running. You could switch off the XR1000 wifi alltogether, but you can also use it if you wish with a different SSID.

I don't use QoS on 1Gbit up/down with XR500 as it literally does nothing. When a packet is send, it reaches the traffic queues and there is no wait time unless your connection is saturated. There is something a need to run a bandwidth limit because the physical limit for a 1Gbit card is 940 mbit, so if you tell the router that you have 1000 mbit available the traffic shaper goes out of whack. On my 600/40 connection with XR700 I do use QoS due to the low upload speed. Also note that QoS only really works on your upload side. You do not have control over packets getting send from the internet. You also have no control over packets traveling to the server once they leave your router. You can only control the little piece between your router and gaming device.

I tried updating from .134 and that seems to do the trick. I was at a DumaOS 3 beta previously. going intermediate firmware -> RC10 -> RC14 gave issues. Maybe updating needs to be done from .134 and not from a previous beta.

Sorry Fraser not going to try again. It doesn't even let me play a game, I get disconnected all the time. The pingplotter result is simply visualizing what happens. Both are also on the same interval so .134 should be similar if interval was the issue.

This RC14 firmware performs really bad. Base latency is lower over the 134 version but I get a huge amount of latency variation playing on PC. This and it randomly disconnects me, I can barely finish 1 DMZ or WZ game without being thrown out of the game. Flashed back 134 and everything is good again. This is with QoS disabled. See screenshot, after the last packetloss I am switching back to .134

I like this. There is a Nokia ONT that works with a 10GB ethernet connection that is also viable, but hard to get. ISP's here are required by law to allow you your own ONT but it has to meet certain standards for their network obviously. ISP's that offer 8Gbit prefer it that you keep their router so you are limited to 2,5GBe + 1 GBe x 3 + wifi. Because their nodes are usually limited to 10GBps. The reason you would want to use 8Gbit is the overhead. Ie I have site to site VPN between 2 locations but long distance. That means latency and that impacts how efficient the connection is. Ie at 1Gbit link speed you might only see 200 mbit in a transfer, at 8Gbit you might see 1Gbit. I have 10Gbit L3 switching in place but plan forward is a MikroTik CCR2004 router. Interestingly they use the same CPU as R9000 / XR700 so it should be plenty fast, the Netgear is just lacking the second 10Gbe port.

Depends on really. The 8Gbit we are supposed to get comes with a router that has 2.5Gbit ports so you can't use 8Gbit for a single device. That's why it's offered cheap as they think that nobody is able to use 8Gbit anyway. (I think XGS-PON can supply 10Gbit to a node so you would be almost saturating the entire node) But offcourse we won't be happy with that 10Gbit infrastructure is not that cheap yet though. If you buy the equipment new. You need a 10Gbit card in every PC or use mainboards that have 10Gbit included ($$$$). 10Gbit capable switches are also on the pricy side. I went with a switch that supports both 10Gbit and 2.5 Gbit as I think 2.5Gbit will gain more traction for home use, you can see PC mainboards utilizing this a lot more over 10Gbit and things like NAS devices as well. It's only a matter of time before TV's, consoles and streaming devices will switch to 2.5Gbit. Reason is that it's a lot more power efficient over 10Gbit. 10Gbit switches need active cooling so are usually on the noisy / power hungry side. Then depending on the usecase, both your PC and your other sources need to be able to go up to 10Gbit speeds. Most NAS devices for home will not make this, hence why 2.5Gbit is rising in popularity. My servers are Intel Xeon with PCIE 3.0 NVME drives in RAID so they have no issue keeping up. And workstation is AMD 5950X with PCIE 4.0 drive, Sabrent Rocket. For a single file, say copy a 20GB DVD file, takes 20 seconds to copy, 100 GB takes under 2 minute, can't beat that with walking around with a external SSD. Also for latency it makes a difference. At 1Gbit, local latency is about 1ms on LAN. At 10Gbit, latency is 0.25ms. While it does not sound like much, working on network shares feels like the drives are physically in your PC, they are much more responsive then on 1Gbit. The real reason for wanting the 8Gbit WAN over 1Gbit WAN though is that I have a second place in another country that already has 1Gbit FTTH (and they are slowly scaling up to 2Gbit), and use a site to site wireguard VPN to access the same server, where as the internet connection at my place where the server is has a low 40mbit upload now that is holding back transfers. For connections over distance it's actually better to have some overhead as latency quickly kills speed. Also what helps loads for big file transfers is loads of RAM. When you download something, the NIC will write to memory and then to the drive. Windows utilizes 10% memory for this. So for a PC with 32 GB memory, it's full at 3GB and then you are most likely to see drops in transfer speed as memory needs to be flushed to the drives. Windows Server uses 50% so a server with 64 or 128 GB memory that can be used for 50% is more likely giving better results. Also for slower PC's RSS (recieve side scaling) needs to be enabled so incoming transfers will be distributed over multiple cores rather than 1 core. And something that is an issue with current retail PC's is the number of PCI-E lanes. Most have 20 so you use 4x for the SSD boot drive and 16x for the Graphics card. So that means that the 10Gbit NIC is generally located on the chipset / south bridge hogging up 4x PCI-E lanes. In reality for fastest transfers you would want both the NIC connected to the CPU and also a 2nd SSD drive connected to the CPU but that brings you into the territory of workstation PC's, Intel Xeon and AMD Threadripper. Going above 1Gbit bandwidth for sustained transfers actually poses a lot of bottlenecks.

I will be getting 8Gbit once my fiber line is installed however my only choices are 1000/1000 or 8000/8000 lol. Hopefully in the spring sometime. Suppose I have to build my own router as well or something that is 10Gbit capable. On my home net I can transfer 10Gbit easy but as you say things like drives and PC memory etc start to form bottlenecks at that speed.

144Hz usually.

Scoreboard is roughly equal to netduma ping.

MX9 is a marshmellow gun but so are most of the SMG's (have all SMG gold and a few platinum) For me it's only normally the MP5 and the Fennec I use.

What he was referring to is artificial latency balancing. Paper from 2005: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220982447_Achieving_fairness_in_multiplayer_network_games_through_automated_latency_balancing Basically they attempt to balance out latency server side by adding additional latency to players with fast internet. And that paper describes tech from 2005. This is also the reason why P2P games always felt more responsive, they eliminated host advantage but didnt balance the clients. So indeed it makes little difference playing on 20ms or 50ms ping etc.

I have had the impression but it's hard to say. I went 84-10 on Shoothouse HQ with the Bizon, next game I was holding a nerf gun. 33-7 Shoothouse TDM with the 725 and next game I was getting constant hitmarkers. More likely that after such a game you get overconfident and then play too reckless, at least that is my conclusion.

Definitly possible you just need to research it better LOL. It's not done via scripts but via configuration.

Next to getting aim assist with XIM he is also using no recoil scripts etc on his XIM. You can tell from that video where he uses the SCAR. I have used that gun a lot in the beta and it's hard to shoot without recoil control.

AMD drivers turn in on by default so I left it on lol. Until now.

PC hitdetection is miles better then on consoles. Watched a few video's, I get about the same as he gets and am playing on 40ms in game, him sounding Australian so probably very close to the server. Your average ping from console to router is 1ms. If you add in all the other factors like processing time of your system, controller input lag, frame time etc etc then you will see that it's really not that bit of latency between your router and console that is making the difference. He's cheating because he is using Xim to KBM, but still gets aim assist. Nonetheless if you look at his playstyle, aware where the enemies are, covering his back with claymores etc that is also a big part of getting to big streaks.

Have you tried turning off Anti-Lag yet? I had it on but without it framerate is much higher. In MW2019 shoothouse I am well over 200fps with it off.

You was probably playing on 60fps mode if you had 4K enabled. Screen Hz is just the refresh rate of the screen. It's not the same as fps. For 120 fps you probably need to be in 1080p mode.

On PS4 in game latency showed 70ms for me while PC showed 40-50ms and 37 ms scoreboard. Also noteworthy is that I had a lot less BS deaths on PC over PS4. There is an issue with processing at the older consoles. PS5 was closer to regular PC as far as I know, I asked my friend with PS5 and he was also showing 40-50ms top left screen. As far as I know for 120Hz on PS5 you need to enable a few settings like performance mode etc.

I can set it to 2750Mhz or maybe even higher but see drops in clock frequency on stress test. In game it doesn't max out anyway it seems.

Actually just put my card back to 2600MHz, found that I am getting framedrops so I think the card is throttling on TDP limits. Have to say that I am enjoying the beta far more on PC than on PS4.

I put it on the same as you have, 2750 Mhz - 1140mv, VRAM 2150Mhz and it's stable, however the difference in game is not massive. It adjusts clock speeds dynamically so I'm sure that is what is happening. Also I downloaded the Steam beta. And had to start from scratch. But deleted it and downloaded via Battlenet and that gives me my normal stats and account I have to expiriment with FSR settings and so on to see what plays best. I am sure the CPU in this PC is holding me back thoug it's 16C/32T but 3.6Ghz 1 core and 3.1GHz all core so not too hot by today's standards.

Not yet, I only put it in this week and was happy with what it did. It's the Sapphhire version. I am using generic AMD software though, the thi shas 3 switchable bios chips so should expirimnt with that,